L. E. Waterman Co. v. Vassar College

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Vassar College

99 F. 564, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 99 F. 564 (L. E. Waterman Co. v. Vassar College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Vassar College, 99 F. 564, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELED, District Judge.

This cause has been heard upon demurrer to a bill of complaint, in usual form, for infringement of patent No. ©64,690, dated May 24, 1898, and granted to Lewis E. Waterman for a fountain pen. The patent is long and intricate, with 26 claims for various forms of conical and somewhat elastic joints, in different places and connections where tight joints are required in such pens. If such a joint, or the mere use of such a 'joint, in a fountain pen, was all of the invention described in the patent, there would undoubtedly be an entire want of patentable novelty. Such joints have long been in well-known use in many ways, and in some ways in fountain pens. This does not fully show, however, that there may not be patentable invention in arranging ■such joints with,, and adapting them to, the other parts of such pens, where so much of the utility depends upon the perfection of the joints. Potts & Oo. v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194, 39 L. Ed. 275. It is suggested that an examination of the many patents on the parts of these pens would show such joints so in use about the parts as to demonstrate clearly the want of patentability of this invention. But this would be more than belongs to the court, and unsafe. Demurrer overruled, defendant to answer over by March rule day.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHEELED, District Judge.

This cause has been heard upon demurrer to a bill of complaint, in usual form, for infringement of patent No. ©64,690, dated May 24, 1898, and granted to Lewis E. Waterman for a fountain pen. The patent is long and intricate, with 26 claims for various forms of conical and somewhat elastic joints, in different places and connections where tight joints are required in such pens. If such a joint, or the mere use of such a 'joint, in a fountain pen, was all of the invention described in the patent, there would undoubtedly be an entire want of patentable novelty. Such joints have long been in well-known use in many ways, and in some ways in fountain pens. This does not fully show, however, that there may not be patentable invention in arranging ■such joints with,, and adapting them to, the other parts of such pens, where so much of the utility depends upon the perfection of the joints. Potts & Oo. v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194, 39 L. Ed. 275. It is suggested that an examination of the many patents on the parts of these pens would show such joints so in use about the parts as to demonstrate clearly the want of patentability of this invention. But this would be more than belongs to the court, and unsafe. Demurrer overruled, defendant to answer over by March rule day.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F. 564, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-e-waterman-co-v-vassar-college-circtsdny-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack